Southeastern University

FireScholars
Doctor of Education (Ed.D)
Spring 2020

FROM BIBLE COLLEGE TO UNIVERSITY: FACTORS RELATED TO
INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE DURING THE LEADERSHIP OF THREE
UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS FROM 1979 TO THE PRESENT
Rustin B. Lloyd
Southeastern University - Lakeland

Follow this and additional works at: />Part of the Educational Leadership Commons, and the Higher Education Administration Commons

Recommended Citation
Lloyd, Rustin B., "FROM BIBLE COLLEGE TO UNIVERSITY: FACTORS RELATED TO INSTITUTIONAL
CHANGE DURING THE LEADERSHIP OF THREE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS FROM 1979 TO THE PRESENT"
(2020). Doctor of Education (Ed.D). 60.
/>
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by FireScholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Doctor of Education (Ed.D) by an authorized administrator of FireScholars. For more information, please contact



FROM BIBLE COLLEGE TO UNIVERSITY:
FACTORS RELATED TO INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE DURING THE LEADERSHIP OF
THREE UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS FROM 1979 TO THE PRESENT

By
RUSTIN B. LLOYD

A doctoral dissertation submitted to the
College of Education
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree Doctor of Education
in Organizational Leadership

Southeastern University
August, 2020



DEDICATION

To my family and friends who constantly encouraged me on my educational journey.

iii


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my Chair, Dr. Janet Deck, who encouraged me that I had a topic
worth pursuing. Dr. Deck’s gentle prompting helped me to make progress as I was losing hope
that this research project would ever get done. I would like to also thank my committee
members, Dr. Permenter and Dr. Anderson, for their helpful feedback and the time spent reading
the various drafts of this dissertation. Finally, I would like to thank the leaders who participated
in this study. Not only did they drive change in the organization, but their reflections will help
others understand how to produce effective change.

iv



Abstract
Higher education is known for its slow rate of change, but as the 21st century continues
institutions of higher education (IHEs) are feeling the pressure to adapt. In addition to the
pressures faced by higher education at large, Christian IHEs faces increasing secularization. This
qualitative case study examined the underlying history and rationale for transition and change
during the administrations of three presidents. Using organization change theory, three
administrators were interviewed to determine the factors that influenced change at a Christian
IHE from 1979 to 2019. The institutional changes in Christian higher education provided rich
areas for research on leadership and organizational change, growth, and development. Results
indicated that religious identity, institutional identity, academic growth, student population and
demographic growth, governance and leadership, and finances were all factors that influenced
change.
Keywords: Christian, evangelical, Pentecostal, organizational change, institution of
higher education, religious identity, institutional identity, academic growth, student population,
governance and leadership, finances

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... iv
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study .................................................................................................... 2
Conceptual Framework ....................................................................................................... 5

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 7
Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................... 7
Overview of Methodology .................................................................................................. 8
Research Design .......................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions ...................................................................................................... 8
Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 8
Procedures.................................................................................................................... 9
Archival document analysis. ................................................................................ 9
Interview analysis. .............................................................................................. 10
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 11
Definition of Key Terms ................................................................................................... 11
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 12
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................................... 14
Organizational Change and Leadership ............................................................................ 15
Lifelong Learning and Leadership............................................................................. 15
Levels of Organizational Change .............................................................................. 18
Integrating Organizational Change ............................................................................ 20

vi


Psychological Contracts and Organizational Change ................................................ 22
Strategic Leadership .................................................................................................. 24
American Evangelical Education ...................................................................................... 26
Intellectual Life .......................................................................................................... 26
Evangelical Higher Education ................................................................................... 28
Leadership and Change in Christian Higher Education .................................................... 34
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 40
III. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 42
Research Design................................................................................................................ 42

Participants ................................................................................................................ 43
Context of the Study .................................................................................................. 44
Role of the Researcher ............................................................................................... 44
Measures for Ethical Protection................................................................................. 44
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 45
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 45
Instruments used in Data Collection .......................................................................... 45
Methods to Address Validity, and Reliability ............................................................ 45
Procedures ......................................................................................................................... 47
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 48
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 49
IV. RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 50
Methods of Data Collection .............................................................................................. 50
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 56
Research Question 1 ................................................................................................ 56
Research question 2 ................................................................................................... 60
Themes .............................................................................................................................. 64
Theme 1: Religious Identify ...................................................................................... 65
Theme 2: Institutional Identity .................................................................................. 66
Theme 3: Academic Growth ...................................................................................... 67
Theme 4: Student Population and Demographic Growth .......................................... 68
Theme 5: Governance and Leadership ...................................................................... 70

vii


Theme 6: Finances ..................................................................................................... 71
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 73
V. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................... 74
Methods of Data Collection .............................................................................................. 74

Interpretation of Results .................................................................................................... 75
Research Question 1 .................................................................................................. 75
Research Question 2 .................................................................................................. 78
The Findings Related to the Literature ............................................................................. 80
Theme 1: Religious Identity ...................................................................................... 81
Theme 2: Institutional identity................................................................................... 81
Theme 3: Academic Growth ...................................................................................... 82
Theme 4: Student Population and Demographic Growth .......................................... 83
Theme 5: Governance and Leadership ...................................................................... 84
Theme 6: Finances ..................................................................................................... 85
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 86
Implications for Future Practice........................................................................................ 86
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 87
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 87
References ..................................................................................................................................... 89
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 96

viii


LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

Table 1: First Cycle of Descriptive Coding ............................................................................ 51
Table 2: Participant A Codes and Second Order Constructs ................................................... 53
Table 3: Participant B Codes and Second Order Constructs................................................... 54
Table 4: Participant C Codes and Second Order Constructs................................................... 54

Table 4: Six Final Second-Order Constructs .......................................................................... 55
Table 6: Theme Descriptions .................................................................................................. 65

ix


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

Figure 1: Lewin’s model of organizational change ................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Flow chart demonstrating procedures for preparing and conducting interviews .... 46
Figure 3: Graphic displaying the original 59 codes categorized by six final
second-constructs .................................................................................................... 56

x


I. INTRODUCTION

Institutions of higher education (IHEs) were infamous for their slow rate of change
(Murray, 2008). As globalization continued to influence industries, higher education institutions
were wrestling with appropriate ways to respond to the correlating pressures (Huber, 2016;
Samier, 2015). The ballooning costs of college tuition and fees, textbooks, housing and food,
along with the federal and state governments’ desire for high levels of participation of their
citizens in higher education and parents’ questions about the ultimate value have all worked
together to place enormous pressures on both small and large universities. A direct and positive
outcome of these pressures have influenced IHEs’ to consider socio-economic status more
thoughtfully and to provide different ways for disadvantaged students to earn a college education

(Declercq & Verboven, 2015). Administrators of IHEs were encouraged to be entrepreneurial in
their vision for the future of their institutions (Hittenberger, 2007) and to build the capacity of the
institutions to change quickly.
In addition to all the external pressures mentioned above at secular universities, Christian
colleges and universities have encountered and responded to increased secularization (Glanzer,
Alleman, & Ream, 2017; Marsden, 1996). In response to critiques by accrediting agencies and
the general public as well as increased secularization of American society, many Christian
colleges have faced and addressed accusations of a lack of intellectual rigor sometimes found
within the evangelical subculture (Galli et al., 2018; Noll, 1995). In the main, most of the

1


critiques centered around students’ adhering to a denominational or confessional ethos without
sufficient emphasis on critical thinking and exploration of alternative ideas and theories (Glanzer
et al., 2017) and in many cases, lack of faculty and student diversity on Christian college
campuses (Longman, 2017).
In 1979, a small Bible college located in the southeastern region of the United States
hired a new president. Over the next 40 years, the Bible college experienced several
organizational transitions. The proposed qualitative case study will examine the underlying
history and rationale for transition and change during the administrations of three presidents.
Background of the Study
In the midst of the Great Depression, churches in the United States, and in particular the
rural South, searched for solutions to the desperation experienced by Americans. Many
evangelists traveled the South and witnessed the sheer magnitude of impoverished and
uneducated southerners who grasped for salvation in what seemed to be a hopeless situation.
Churches and evangelists did what they could; while some evangelicals turned to the
government, others turned to revival (Greene, 2017).
Recognizing the need to do more, evangelist Guy Shields set out to establish a Bible
school that would serve the southeastern states. In 1935 during a camp meeting, the Alabama

Shield of Faith Institute was founded in New Brockton, Alabama (van der Laan, 2010). Due to
the state of the U.S. economy in the 1930s, the new school had financial constraints, but revival
and the desire to train students in the Bible kept the school going. The 1937 school catalog
identified the school as a Bible-training school: “South-Eastern Bible Institute [name changed in
1936] is a Bible training school, for prospective ministers, missionaries, and Christian workers,

2


whose aim is to develop in each student three paramount necessities for successful Christian
living, or service, i.e. Spirituality, Knowledge, and Vision” (van der Laan, 2010, p. 14).
Between 1935 and 1956 the school relocated to several different locations and
experienced multiple name changes until settling in Lakeland, Florida under the name SouthEastern Bible College. In 1977, the college was renamed Southeastern College of the
Assemblies of God due to confusion with a school by the same name in Alabama. At the time of
the name change, college administrators made it abundantly clear that the mission of the college
remained unchanged. According to the Fall 1977 issue of the Southeasterner, “It is to be
thoroughly understood that there has been no change in the philosophies of the college” (van der
Laan, 2010, p. 90).
In 1986, under the leadership of President James Hennesy, Southeastern College of the
Assemblies of God (Southeastern) earned regional accreditation from the Southern Association
of Colleges and Schools (SACS). The accreditation marked a major academic milestone for the
college. Although still considered a Bible college, Southeastern was required to build up the
academic credentials of its faculty; more than 40% of the faculty were required to hold doctoral
degrees. In addition, the library was required to expand its resources (van der Laan, 2010, p. 94).
After the retirement of Dr. Hennesy, Dr. Mark Rutland was hired as the new president of
Southeastern in 1999. Enrollment grew from around 1,000 to over 3,000 during his tenure; new
faculty and staff were hired; facilities were upgraded to create a coherent architectural presence
and sufficient housing for the growing student body; and landscapes resembling a tropical
paradise were created on campus (van der Laan, 2010). In addition, new undergraduate majors
and graduate programs were developed. Dr. Rutland had a vision for Southeastern to transition

to a liberal arts college, and ultimately, to a university. In 2001, Southeastern College went

3


through the SACS reaffirmation process (the process by which the accreditor requires a report
verifying that the school has achieved and maintained the required components required for
accreditation) and was approved. Subsequently, the college began to make the transition to a
university; in 2005, Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God became Southeastern
University. This transition led to substantial changes in the organizational structure of the
university to include four colleges and deans responsible for their administration: College of
Education, College of Business and Legal Studies, College of Arts & Sciences, and College of
Christian Ministries and Religion.
In 2011, Dr. Kent Ingle became president of Southeastern University (van der Laan,
2010). Under his leadership, the university experienced unprecedented growth in student
enrollment, facilities, athletics, and programing. The student population grew from around 2,500
in 2011 to more than 8,700 in 2019 (Reeves, Lloyd, & Permenter, 2019). Much of the student
growth was influenced by the introduction of the School of Unrestricted Education, which
included online education, dual enrollment, and extension sites across the United States (Reeves,
et al, 2019). The addition of a university football team, as well as other athletics, also fueled
growth of both facilities and enrollment. In 2013, the university added its first doctoral program,
the Doctor of Education, followed by the addition of a Doctor of Ministry in 2017, and a Doctor
in Strategic Leadership and PhD in Organizational Leadership in 2018.
The institutional changes in the history of Southeastern University (SEU) provided rich
areas for research on leadership and organizational change, growth, and development. This
study focused on the leadership initiatives of SEU’s presidents during the institutional transitions
and the factors that influenced the changes. The researcher interviewed three SEU
administrators who served during periods of rapid change from 1979 to 2019.

4



Conceptual Framework
The theoretical underpinnings of this case study relied on organizational change theory.
“Organizational change explains the movement of an organization from the known (current state)
state to the unknown (desired future state) state” (Hussain et al., 2018, p. 123). The foundations
of change theory were found in the work of Kurt Lewin’s classic model for change, which
includes three steps: unfreezing, change, and refreezing (Lewin, 1951). Lewin argued that
successful change can be planned, but it required an unfreezing in order for the status quo to
change. “As this approach refers to episodic organizational change and allows conceptual
thinking about the main driving forces of change, it seems to be an adequate theoretical point of
departure (Seyfried & Ansmann, 2018, p. 1062). Lewin (1951) concluded that the model is
dependent on creating the perception that change is needed. Leaders need to create a motivation
for change to occur. The change is then identified, and unfreezing phase begins. During the
unfreezing phase, organizational leaders need to create an awareness that the status quo prevents
the organization from reaching its goals.
Figure 1 depicts the process of the change model developed by Lewin (1951). Typically,
leaders first identify a need for organizational change, although the need may arise from other
sectors of an institution. The organization then begins the process of unfreezing and creating
employee involvement. As the change process takes place, knowledge sharing between
employees and leadership is emphasized. Communication and knowledge sharing are essential
in order to create organizational cohesiveness and buy-in of the change. According to Lewin,
without proper communication, education, and time, employee resistance to change will
increase. Once knowledge sharing is complete, the leadership can begin the change process in
concert with employees. After implementing the change, the refreezing phase takes place to

5


consolidate the change and one can measure the impact of change as part of a continuous

improvement process.
Figure 1. Lewin’s model of organizational change. (Hussain et al., 2018)

In addition to Lewin’s (1951) foundational work, John Kotter’s (2012) eight-stage
process of creating change is helpful to describe the process of change within an organization.
Leaders must play the role of change agents in the unfreezing process. “The transformational
leadership style affects the organizational change process. In this type of leadership style, the
leaders coordinate with employees, share their knowledge, [and] give opportunity in making
decisions in organizational level” (Hussain et al., 2018, p. 126). Given that leaders drive change
within Lewin’s (1951) model, Kotter (2012) provides an eight-stage framework for leaders to
follow when creating change. The eight stages are
•

establishing a sense of urgency;

•

creating a guiding coalition;

•

developing a vision and strategy;

6


•

communicating the change vision;


•

empowering broad-based action;

•

generating short-term wins;

•

consolidating gains and producing more change and;

•

anchoring new approaches in the culture.

Kotter (2012) highlighted globalization as the inciting incident that sparks change in an
organization. Most institutions of higher education were in the process of responding to
globalization, which influences cost, technology, and delivery of education to students. Both
Lewin’s (1951) and Kotter’s (2012) models of change and the influence of leadership provide
strong theoretical bases for the qualitative study of change at a Christian university.
Significance of the Study
Many scholars have overlooked the influence of evangelical institutions of higher
education on academia and vice versa. The oversight is likely a result of anti-intellectualism that
runs in many fundamentalist and evangelical circles (Galli et al., 2018; Noll, 1994). The
formation and development of evangelical Bible colleges and their transition to universities
should be examined further. This study adds to the body of literature on organizational change,
informs Christian IHEs on organizational change processes, discusses the influence of leadership
on change, reports the factors that motivated change, and conveys the results of a major
academic transition and its challenges

Purpose Statement
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to analyze the influence of the internal and
external factors related to institutional change during the leadership of three university presidents
from 1979 to the present.

7


Overview of Methodology
Research Design
The research design of this study was a non-experimental, qualitative case study of the
factors that influenced change during three administrations at a Christian IHE from 1979 to
2019. The proposed study was a single instrumental case study that used the case organization as
an example of the factors that influence organizational change in Christian colleges and
universities.
Archived accreditation documents and school catalogs from the target university were
examined qualitatively by the researcher to determine the changes from 1979 to 2019 that laid
the groundwork for the transitions at the university led by three different administrations. The
researcher then conducted semi-structured interviews of the presidents at the target university
who were present during the change process.
Research Questions
Q1: What were the factors that influenced institutional change during the leadership of
three university presidents from 1979 to 2019?
Q2: What were the outcomes of those changes?
Data Collection
Data collection in the first phase of the study consisted of procurement of primary
sources of accreditation documents and school catalogs of the target institution from the Office
of Institutional Research. Primary sources included documentation from the target institution
from 1979 to 2019 and included a review of the school’s mission, vision, and stated values; a
review of academic programs, faculty members, students, and a wide variety of organizational

records related to curricula, student learning, financial resources, governance, and facilities. The

8


review of archival data assisted the researcher in preparing for the interviews and provided
context for the overall study.
In the second phase of the study, semi-structured interviews of administrators who were
present during the transition period were conducted by the researcher. The following leaders at
the target university were interviewed:
•

Mrs. Margie Hennesy, Southeastern College of the Assemblies of God Director of
College Relations, 1979-1999;

•

Dr. Mark Rutland, Southeastern College/Southeastern University President, 19992009; and

•

Dr. Kent Ingle, Southeastern University President, 2011-Present.

After approval by Southeastern University’s Institutional Review Board, the researcher
conducted the semi-structured interviews, which assisted the researcher in ascertaining the target
school’s vision, leadership, and the social, historical, and organizational contexts of each
presidency. The interview questions (see Appendix A) were designed to assist the researcher to
categorize the factors that motivated change during each presidency during the prescribed period.
The interview questions were validated by the dissertation committee prior to conducting the
interviews. The interviews were audio-recorded, and the recordings were transcribed.

Procedures
Archival document analysis. The researcher examined the historic archival documents
related to accreditation and school catalogs during the defined time period of the study (19792019) in order to ascertain patterns of development and transitions over time at the institution
and to prepare the researcher for the interviews.

9


Interview analysis. The interviews were coded into themes for interpretation. As
Creswell (2013) suggested, the researcher formed a description using the data from the
interviews and related the data to themes found in both the interviews and in the organizational
change model. The researcher followed several steps during the data analysis.
First, the researcher validated the transcripts with each interviewee. Then the researcher
reviewed the interview data by reading the transcripts multiple times to provide notes on
emerging ideas.
Writing notes or memos in the margins of field notes or transcripts or under images helps
in this initial process of exploring a database. Scanning the text allows the researcher to
build a sense of the data as a whole without getting caught up in the details of coding.
(Creswell, 2013, p. 184)
Once the researcher gained an understanding of emerging ideas, the process of describing
and coding from the interviews continued. Coding is essential to creating a description of the
data related to themes in the theoretical model and organizational change literature.
The process of coding is central to qualitative research and involves making sense of the
text collected from interviews, observations, and documents. Coding involves
aggregating the text or visual data into small categories of information, seeking evidence
for the code from different databases being used in a study, and then assigning a label to
the code. (Creswell, 2013, p. 189)
Coding each of the transcripts assisted the researcher in determining both individual
themes and group themes.


10


Limitations
The analysis for this study was based on a small sample size at one Christian Institution
of Higher Education. The study contained data that was subjective and possibly influenced by
the effects of time. One of the intended participants passed away before an interview was
conducted. As a result, two of the participants were presidents of the organization, and one a
high-level administrator, and wife, of the intended participant. In addition, the perspective of
organization change was that of solely the leaders; staff and faculty were not included in the
collection or analysis of data.
Definition of Key Terms
Evangelicalism is not similar to other Christian “isms” such as Catholicism or
Pentecostalism because it does not have many well-defined boundaries. “All discussions of
evangelicalism, therefore, are always both descriptions of the way things really are as well as
efforts within our own minds to provide some order for a multifaceted, complex set of impulses
and organizations” (Noll, 1994, p. 3). One of the best-known definitions of evangelicalism
centers on conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism; these four elements were part
of a quadrilateral that created the foundation for evangelicalism (Bebbington, 1989; Rosell,
2008, p. 26). In other words, evangelicalism is centered on actively transforming the lives of
others using the teachings of the Bible and stressing the importance of Christ’s crucifixion.
Evangelicalism is not just a term used to identify doctrinal distinctives, “it can also mean a selfconscious interdenominational movement, with leaders, publications, and institutions with which
people from many subgroups identify” (Marsden, 2006, p. 5).

11


Pentecostals, since their budding movement in the late 19th century, have been on the
margins of society, and in many ways, have been marginalized in their own evangelical circles
for being too radical in their faith (Rosell, 2008, pp. 93–94).

These spiritual adventurers went by a variety of names- including premillennialists,
holiness folk, and, from the lips of outsiders, holy rollers. But we might call them all
radical evangelicals, for they commonly insisted that the only true gospel was the ‘fourfold’ gospel of personal salvation, Holy Ghost baptism, divine healing, and the Lord's
soon return” (Wacker, 2003, p. 73).
Organizational change is the fluctuation of an organization from the present state to a
desired future state (Hussain et al., 2018, p. 123)
Summary
The purpose of this qualitative case study was to analyze the influence of the internal and
external factors related to institutional change during the leadership of three university presidents
from 1979-present. This study added to the body of literature on organizational change,
informed Christian IHEs on organizational change processes, discussed the influence of
leadership on change, reported the factors that motivated change, and conveyed the results of a
major academic transition and its challenges. The researcher sought to answer two questions:
What were the factors that influenced institutional change during the leadership of three
university presidents from 1979 to 2019? and what were the outcomes of those changes?
Chapter 1 provided an overview of the study. Chapter 2examines the literature as it
related to organizational change and leadership, American evangelical education, and leadership
and change in Christian higher education. Chapter 3 describes the case study methodology used
in the study including participants, role of the researcher, and data collection measures taken to

12


conduct a valid, reliable, and ethical study. Chapter 4 discusses the results as they related to the
research questions and emerging themes. Chapter 5 allows for discussion of the results as well
as findings related to the literature, limitations of the study, and implications and
recommendations for future research.

13



II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to ascertain the factors that produced
organizational change at an evangelical IHE from 1979 to 2019 and what the outcome of those
changes were. The researcher interviewed three leaders at the IHE over the 40-year period.
Given the nature of the study, the literature review is divided into three major sections:
organizational change and leadership, American evangelical education, and leadership and
change in Christian higher education.
The section organizational change and leadership focused on several factors that play a
role in organizational change and on the role of leaders in that change. First, the literature
connected to lifelong learning and leadership was reviewed to understand what lifelong learning
is, why it is essential to leadership, and the role educators play in fostering lifelong learning.
Next, a review was conducted on levels of organizational change ranging from the individual,
group, and systems level of organizational change. Then, organizational models were reviewed
to understand how organizational change is integrated. The impact of organizational change on
employees and how leaders navigate the implementation of change on internal constituents was
explored when reviewing psychological contracts and organizational change. The final
subsection reviewed the ideas of strategic leadership when leading organizational change.
The section on American evangelical education sheds light on theological, cultural, and
political elements that influenced the formation, separation, and expansion of evangelical higher

14